The Inevitable Death of Liberalism

It is inevitable that Liberalism will ultimately fail. Liberty and Freedom will always win, and liberalism will eventually collapse under its own weight. Spending a lot of time as I do reading various news sources, scanning the conservative blogosphere, listening to talk radio, and watching the various news outlets, there seems to be an apprehension and anxiety among many members of the Conservative movement (sometimes myself included). When reading about all of the Obama policies being proposed, Conservatives can’t help but sometimes feel helpless and despondent about the direction our great nation is going.

Then other day, I read a piece by Rick Karlgaard, the publisher of Forbes Magazine, on the Coming Blue-State Collapse. In it, Karlgaard points out how the excessive spending by Democrat-controlled states are quickly leading to state insolvency. With the cost of living in blue states being higher, a much fairly large percentage (when compared to the rest of the nation) will fall under Obama’s proposed tax hikes. This will likely lead to mass exodus from those states to areas with a lower cost-of-living, driving the tax revenues in those states even further down.

This article got me to thinking about liberalism as a whole. As an ideology, it is bound to ultimately fail. It is an ideology based more on feeling and a warped sense of “fairness” than any grounded worldview or empirical economics. It is a watered-down version of the failed ideologies of Soviet Russia, and therefore it is bound to collapse under it’s own weight. At some point, the weight of the failed policies of the left will become too much for American society to bear, and the ideology will be ultimately discredited. Big Government has never been able to sustain itself, and the fiscal and monetary polices of the current administration will lead the U.S. to financial ruin.

This should give Conservatives hope for the future. Conservatives should be confident in the fact that the ideals of liberty and freedom, both in the public square and the private sector, are enduring and right, and that they will ultimately prevail. The only question that remains is how much damage will be done by the left before their ultimate demise.

For example, at some point in the future, the big “lynch pins” of Liberal Democrat policy, Social Security and Medicare, will fail. The models show that the plans are paying out way more than they are taking in, and the moneys taken in the past have been foolishly spent on other government programs. Yet the collapse of these two programs will lead to the insolvency of our federal government. It is critical to our future that we stop liberalism before it gets to that point. America is too good of a country to see destroyed, and that is why we care, that is why we continue to fight even when the tide of public opinion seems against us.

The Obama administration offers an opportunity for Conservatives to illustrate the folly of liberalism and the virtues of Conservatism based on liberty and freedom. We should try to stop his policies, as they will do our nation harm. In absense of being able to stop them, however, we should contrast our positions to his, so that when the policies do eventually fail, we can use their failures to illustrate the damaging nature of liberalism, and stop it’s onslaught before it is too late.

What’s interesting to me is that both of these comments do nothing to counter my argument, but one rather just decides to laugh hysterically and the other uses an inapt Steinbeck allusion. Please, people. Feel free to disagree, but argue on the merits.

My point is vindicated. Liberalism is not based on a system of ideas, but only feelings and emotions, as both of these comments show. .

Remember what two former Republican President’s once said:
(to paraphrase)
1. “What one generation embraces, the next one accepts.” — Lincoln
2. “Freedom is just one generation away from extinction.” — Reagan

In my opinion the death of liberalism is not inevitable, nor likely if we are ready to embrace Obama-style decline. People will suffer even “soft” tyranny as long as it is generally tolerable — a sentiment that Jefferson put in the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln and Reagan give us a strong warning we cannot take for granted. We should never think that because this is America truly bad things cannot happen here.

While I agree that the liberal welfare-state democratic socialist model is mathematically unsustainable and absolutely will fail, what will replace these lynchpins once they collapse? They are unfortunately woven into our social contract.

Since World War I, Libs have been trying to exercise power over the economy (and their constituents) as if it required wartime powers (read the rest of FDR’s First Inaugural, for instance). People look to the government first and foremost for security and the Libs have taken nearly 100 years to blur the line between economic security and physical safety — creating the impression that they are one and the same. Once the Right can figure out a way to recreate the distinction will the purveyors of the welfare-state’s “soft” tyranny truly be defeated.

Its not as if you’ve actually made an argument. All you’ve done is state a conclusion with a lot of empty rhetoric about how great conservatism is and how evil liberalism is. Did you describe any sort of process of liberalism’s downfall? No – all you’ve done is restate your conclusions as the argument. It’s sufficient to just counter you by saying that no, liberalism won’t fail. But I’ll go further; the free market isn’t always the solution, and the government can be a responsible and appropriate actor. Conservatives are wrong to build false idol to lassiez-faire economics – the government doesn’t act outside of the economy; the money spent through the government is economically the same as money spent through the private sector, the only difference is that the government acts through political will, where the private sector (because of various externalities, inefficiencies, information gaps, etc) may not be able to do so. Yes, the free market can be a useful tool, but sometimes it’s just not appropriate.

The great failing of modern conservatism is its inability to think about anything in but the most simplistic platitudes. “Free market = good” simply doesn’t function in the real world, and what you see now is a result of that dysfunction.

First off, Dalman has no friends, unless you count its Hussein-0bama bobblehead.

The Lefty dissonance is fascinating, ain’t it? You offered a coherent explanation (which may or may not be right) for why the Blue States are in a fix. Instead of refuting your argument the proggs promptly start with the ad hominems and red herrings.

Keep up the good work. Remember, if the progg-dogs start squealin’ you know that the rock you chucked didn’t miss the mark.

>You offered a coherent explanation (which may or may not be right) for why the Blue States are in a fix

Go ahead and explain that one to me, please. My only interest in this particular patch of the internet was my amusement at comment #3′s belief there was anything meritorious to argue over – all I did was point out there was no substance to this particular “argument” (which I note you’ve not bothered to actually refute) and then explain my distaste for conservatism.

So you say that conservatism and free market economics will fail on the basis that it’s too simple?

Why does something have to be cmplicated to work? why do you think the rules are different just because America is larger than it was at it’s founding? Furthermore, what basis of proof do you have that conservatism/free markets don’t work because it’s too simple?

It seemed to have worked under Reagan and Bush 41, even managed to work with Clinton (back when the republicans in congress had balls and served as a good check/balance). It worked for almost 4 years of Bush 43 but once dems took control of the senate they paved the way. You DO realize that we’ve had this dem congress for 5+ years now right? It wasnt ALL Bush 43′s fault.

Once you start introducing restrictive control over things from the top, you are no longer working for the people but rather for a subset of people affected by the controls or regulations. This is the failure of big government as they claim to be for the people but will never actually be able to successfully micro-manage the entire populus.

Grow up.

Liberalism is a romantic ideal best kept on the middle school playground. Life isn’t fair and never will be. God didn’t design life to be fair which is why Liberalism will fail.

I never said free market economics would fail, I said CONSERVATISM is destined to fail. Like I said, the question of whether free market economics work or not comes down to individual situations: externalities, inefficiencies, information gaps, etc. The reason CONSERVATISM will fail is because they are blind to nuance, and cannot seem to think in anything but black and white. Nothing “has to be complicated” but the failure to see the world for how it really has plagued the right for a long time. Reaganomics don’t work. Cutting taxes is not always the solution for every problem. The free market is not a cure-all. Government isn’t always evil (or always inefficient, for that matter). Nothing in this world exists in absolutes, so without even needing to get into why, where or how much, it’s easy to see that conservatism is destined to fail.

I don’t really want to get into this stuff, but America wasn’t a free market at its founding, Reagan raised taxes at least four times, and Republicans had SIX years of total government control (Democrats took office in the senate and house in 2007). Your worldview is skewed by bad facts, rigid thinking and a failure to live in, as they say, a “reality-based” world.

Doctor heal thyself. This post presented a statement that liberalism will fail. As evidence, the post cited the fact that Social Security and Medicare paying out more than they take in is unsustainable. One can debate the merits of the argument or even the sufficiency of the evidence. Characterizing the argument as a mere assertion however, is dishonest. That technique may be effective in APDA, but the real world sees it for what it is.

Especially when the rebuttal is nothing more than “the free market doesn’t work” (as if anyone didn’t already know that) . And no, the fact that you used the terms “externalities” and “inefficiencies” (without identifying which ones you were talking about) doesn’t change the fact that the rebuttal was nothing more than an assertion.

And as for inventing facts, look no further than the previous comment. Our nation experienced what was at the time the longest peacetime expansion in history after the Reagan tax cuts kicked in. We had an even longer expansive period in the 1990s after the Republican Congress and Bill Clinton lowered taxes and controlled spending. Even when Clinton raised taxes, the top marginal rate was still closer to Reagan’s than Carter’s and we saw expansion.

Yes, Reagan implemented some tax increases (at least one of which was based on the Democrats’ broken promise of spending reductions to match the tax increases), but the overall result of the Reagan program was a net tax cut. Like the tax cuts of the 1960s and 1990s, they were tax cuts that led to prosperity. At least for those who have a job, something you might want to look into.